Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th August, 2025
INDIA STEEL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, ANIS ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Ansari, Ms. Tabbassum Firdaus, Mr. Samud Salim and Mr. Imran Ahmad, Advs. (M:971850300)
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Advocate for GNCTD. (M: 9911211000)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Tyagi, SPC for UOI/R-4. (M:9811108413)
Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC, CBIC
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- India Steel through its Proprietor, Mr. Anis under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 28th May, 2024, as also the order dated 30th August, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed in respect of F.Y. 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification Nos. 56/2023 – Central Tax dated 28th March, 2023 and 56/2023 – State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’)
4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:
High Court is now presently under consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC- SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:
7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.
9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.
10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.
11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”
5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
6. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors.
7. On facts however, the impugned order dated 30th August, 2024 raises demands qua the Petitioner on account of excess Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) availed and claimed ITC from the cancelled dealers. The impugned order arises out of SCN dated 28th May, 2024 wherein a personal hearing was also fixed for 1st July, 2024. Thereafter, two reminders dated 18th July, 2024 and 12th August, 2024 are also stated to be issued by the GST Department to the Petitioner.
8. A reply dated 25th August, 2024 was then filed by the Petitioner in response to which a third reminder dated 27th August, 2024 was issued by the GST Department seeking further documents from the Petitioner. Along with the said reminder, specific documents were sought by the GST Department in respect of certain cancelled dealers.
9. Thereafter, a reply dated 30th August, 2024 was filed by the Petitioner. After consideration of the same, the impugned order has been passed raising demand to the tune of Rs. 2,01,03,896/- against the Petitioner.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is a reasoned order. Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be relegated to filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by 30th September, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
12. The access to the GST portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require.
13. If the appeal is filed by 30th September, 2025, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
14. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. and of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RENU BHATNAGAR JUDGE AUGUST 8, 2025/dk/ck